Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Paediatricians’ opinions of microneedle-mediated monitoring: a key stage in the translation of microneedle technology from laboratory into clinical practice

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Delivery and Translational Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Microneedle (MN) arrays could offer an alternative method to traditional drug delivery and blood sampling methods. However, acceptance among key end-users is critical for new technologies to succeed. MNs have been advocated for use in children and so, paediatricians are key potential end-users. However, the opinions of paediatricians on MN use have been previously unexplored. The aim of this study was to investigate the views of UK paediatricians on the use of MN technology within neonatal and paediatric care. An online survey was developed and distributed among UK paediatricians to gain their opinions of MN technology and its use in the neonatal and paediatric care settings, particularly for MN-mediated monitoring. A total of 145 responses were obtained, with a completion response rate of 13.7 %. Respondents believed an alternative monitoring technique to blood sampling in children was required. Furthermore, 83 % of paediatricians believed there was a particular need in premature neonates. Overall, this potential end-user group approved of the MN technology and a MN-mediated monitoring approach. Minimal pain and the perceived ease of use were important elements in gaining favour. Concerns included the need for confirmation of correct application and the potential for skin irritation. The findings of this study provide an initial indication of MN acceptability among a key potential end-user group. Furthermore, the concerns identified present a challenge to those working within the MN field to provide solutions to further improve this technology. The work strengthens the rationale behind MN technology and facilitates the translation of MN technology from lab bench into the clinical setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Henry S, McAllister D, Allen M, Prausnitz M. Microfabricated microneedles: a novel approach to transdermal drug delivery. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87(8):922–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gardeniers H, Luttge R, Berenschot E, de Boer M, Yeshurun S. Silicon micromachined hollow microneedles for transdermal liquid transport. J Microelectromech Syst. 2003;12(6):855–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Haq M, Smith E, John D, Kalavala M, Edwards C, Anstey A. Clinical administration of microneedles: skin puncture, pain and sensation. Biomed Microdevices. 2009;11(1):35–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chabri F, Bouris K, Jones T, Barrow D, Hann A, Allender C. Microfabricated silicon microneedles for nonviral cutaneous gene delivery. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150(5):869–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Donnelly RF, Morrow D, McCarron P, Woolfson AD, Morrissey A, Juzenas P. Microneedle-mediated intradermal delivery of 5-aminolevulinic acid: potential for enhanced topical photodynamic therapy. J Control Release. 2008;129(3):154–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Verbaan F, Bal S, van den Berg D, Groenink W, Verpoorten H, Luttge R. Assembled microneedle arrays enhance the transport of compounds varying over a large range of molecular weight across human dermatomed skin. J Control Release. 2007;117(2):238–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Song J, Kim Y, Lipatov A, Pearton M, Davis C, Yoo D. Microneedle delivery of H5N1 influenza virus-like particles to the skin induces long-lasting B- and T-cell responses in mice. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2010;17(9):1381–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Tsuchiya K, Jinnin S, Yamamoto H, Uetsuji Y, Nakamachi E. Design and development of a biocompatible painless microneedle by the ion sputtering deposition method. Precis Eng. 2010;34(3):461–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kolli C, Banga A. Characterization of solid maltose microneedles and their use for transdermal delivery. Pharm Res. 2008;25(1):104–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mikolajewska P, Donnelly RF, Garland MJ, Morrow D, Singh TRR, Iani V. Microneedle pre-treatment of human skin improves 5-aminolevulininc acid (ALA)- and 5-aminolevulinic acid methyl ester (MAL)-induced PpIX production for topical photodynamic therapy without increase in pain or erythema. Pharm Res. 2010;27(10):2213–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Donnelly RF, Singh TRR, Morrow D, Woolfson AD. Microneedle-mediated transdermal and intradermal drug delivery. West Sussex: Wiley; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang SY, O’Cearbhaill SD, Sisk GC, Park KM, Cho WK, Villiger M, et al. A bio-inspired swellable microneedle adhesive for mechanical interlocking with tissue. Nat Commun 2013;4:1702.

  13. Donnelly RF, Singh TRR, Alkilani AZ, McCrudden MTC, O’Neill S, O’Mahony C, et al. Hydrogel-forming microneedle arrays exhibit antimicrobial properties: potential for enhanced patient safety. Int J Pharm. 2013;451(1–2):76–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhargav A, Muller DA, Kendall MAF, Corrie SR. Surface modifications of microprojection arrays for improved biomarker capture in the skin of live mice. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2012;4(5):2483–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaushik S, Hord A, Denson D, McAllister D, Smitra S, Allen M. Lack of pain associated with microfabricated microneedles. Anesth Analg. 2001;92(2):502–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bal S, Caussin J, Pavel S, Bouwstra J. In vivo assessment of safety of microneedle arrays in human skin. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2008;35(3):193–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gill H, Denson D, Burris B, Prausnitz M. Effect of microneedle design on pain in human volunteers. Clin J Pain. 2008;24(7):585–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Banks S, Pinninti R, Gill H, Paudel K, Crooks P, Brogden N. Transdermal delivery of naltrexol and skin permeability lifetime after microneedle treatment in hairless guinea pigs. J Pharm Sci. 2010;99(7):3072–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Donnelly RF, Morrow D, Fay F, Scott C, Abdelghany S, Singh TRR. Microneedle-mediated intradermal nanoparticle delivery: potential for enhanced local administration of hydrophobic pre-formed photosensitisers. Photodiagn Photodyn Ther. 2010;7(4):222–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mukerjee E, Collins S, Isseroff R, Smith R. Microneedle array for transdermal biological fluid extraction and in situ analysis. Sens Actuators A 2004;114(2–3):267–275.

  21. Wang P, Cornwell M, Prausnitz M. Minimally invasive extraction of dermal interstitial fluid for glucose monitoring using microneedles. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7(1):131–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Theoretical analytical flow model in hollow microneedles for non-forced fluid extraction. 1st IEEE International Conference on Nano/Micro Engineered and Molecular Systems; 18–21 Jan; New York: IEEE; 2006.

  23. Corrie S, Fernando G, Crichton M, Brunck M, Anderson C, Kendall M. Surface-modified microprojection arrays for intradermal biomarker capture, with low non-specific protein binding. Lab Chip. 2010;10(20):2655–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Windmiller J, Valdes Ramirez G, Zhou N, Zhou M, Miller P. Bicomponent microneedle array biosensor for minimally-invasive glutamate monitoring. Electroanalysis. 2011;23(10):2302–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Holden RJ, Karsh B. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43(1):159–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Heinemann L. The failure of exubera: are we beating a dead horse? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(3):518.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lærum L, Ellingsen G, Faxvaag A. Doctors’ use of electronic medical records systems in hospitals: cross sectional survey. BMJ: Br Med J (Int Ed). 2001;323(7325):1344–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wu JH, Wang SC, Lin LM. Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(1):66–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Liddy C, Dusseault JJ, Dahrouge S, Hogg W, Lemelin J, Humber J. Telehomecare for patients with multiple chronic illnesses: pilot study. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54(1):58–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Handy J, Hunter I, Whiddett R. User acceptance of inter-organizational electronic medical records. Health Inform J. 2001;7(2):103–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Or CKL, Karsh B. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(4):550–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim J, Park HA. Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers’ health behavior intention. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5):e133.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Birchall J, Clemo R, Anstey A, John D. Microneedles in clinical practice—an exploratory study into the opinions of healthcare professionals and the public. Pharm Res. 2011;28(1):95–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mooney K, McElnay JC, Donnelly RF. Children’s views on microneedle use as an alternative to blood sampling for patient monitoring. Int J Pharm Pract. 2013;22(5):335–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Green J, Britten N. Qualitative research and evidence based medicine. BMJ Br Med J. 1998;316(7139):1230–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Fitzpatrick R, Boulton M. Qualitative methods for assessing health care. Qual Health Care. 1994;3(2):107–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Evans JR, Mathur A. The value of online surveys. Internet Res -Electron Netw Appl Policy. 2005;15(2):195–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lefever S, Dal M, Matthiasdottir A. Online data collection in academic research: advantages and limitations. Br J Educ Technol. 2007;38(4):574–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas. 2000;60(6):821–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fowler FJ. Survey research methods. 3rd ed. United States of America: Sage; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2009(3).

  42. McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, et al. Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(31):1–256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ward AM, Agar M, Koczwara B. Collaborating or co-existing: a survey of attitudes of medical oncologists toward specialist palliative care. Palliat Med. 2009;23(8):698–707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tsikriktsis N. A review of techniques for treating missing data in OM survey research. J Oper Manag. 2005;24(1):53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Competency, compassion and contentment: nurses’ attitudes toward pain associated with peripheral venous access in pediatric patients. American Pain Society 27th Annual Scientific meeting; 8–10 May 2008; 2008.

  46. Department of Health. Integrated care: our shared commitment. 2013.

  47. Department of Health. Patient and public involvement: the evidence for policy implementation. 2004.

  48. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Patient and public involvement policy. 2012.

  49. Cartwright A. Professionals as responders: variations in and effects of response rates to questionnaires, 1961–77. Br Med J. 1978 1978;2.

  50. McAvoy BR, Kaner EFS. General practice postal surveys: a questionnaire too far? Br Med J. 1996;313(7059):732–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Barclay S, Todd C, Finlay I, Grande G, Wyatt P. Not another questionnaire! Maximizing the response rate, predicting non-response and assessing non-response bias in postal questionnaire studies of GPs. Fam Pract. 2002;19(1):105–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess Eval High Educ. 2008;33(3):301–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lin W, van Ryzin GG. Web and mail surveys: an experimental comparison of methods for nonprofit research. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2012;41(6):1014–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Aitken C, Power R, Dwyer R. A very low response rate in an on-line survey of medical practitioners. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008;32(3):288–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Scott A, Jeon SH, Joyce CM, Humphreys JS, Kalb G, Witt J, et al. A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011 2011-01-01;11:126–126.

  56. Braithwaite D, Emery J, de Lusignan S, Sutton S. Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Pract. 2003;20(5):545–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge Dr David Sweet, Consultant Neonatologist and member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, for his assistance with this work. We also recognise Dr TM Tuan-Mahmood, for her assistance with the ethical application and survey preparation. Also to our colleagues in the Children’s Medicines Research Group, Queen’s University Belfast, who piloted this survey, prior to distribution.

Ethics

This work was granted approval by the Ethical committee, School of Pharmacy, Queen’s University Belfast (012PMY2012).

Conflict of interest

Ryan Donnelly is a named inventor on a patent application related tohydrogel-forming microneedle arrays (details below). He is working with a number of companies with a view to commercialisation of this technology. He provides advice, through consultancy, to these companies. This does not alter our adherence to Drug Delivery & Translational Research policies onsharing data and materials. None of the other authors have any competing interests.

Donnelly, R.F., Woolfson A.D., McCarron, P.A., Morrow, D.I.J. Morrissey, A. (2007). Microneedles/Delivery Device and Method. British Patent Application No 0718996.2. Filed September 28th 2007. International publication No WO2009040548. Approved for grant in Japan and China. US, Europe, India and Australia pending.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmacy, Queen’s University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK

    Karen Mooney, James C. McElnay & Ryan F. Donnelly

Authors
  1. Karen Mooney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James C. McElnay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ryan F. Donnelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan F. Donnelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mooney, K., McElnay, J.C. & Donnelly, R.F. Paediatricians’ opinions of microneedle-mediated monitoring: a key stage in the translation of microneedle technology from laboratory into clinical practice. Drug Deliv. and Transl. Res. 5, 346–359 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13346-015-0223-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13346-015-0223-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation